Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Blood-Clot Claims Against Airlines | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.29.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.23.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.24.24 Airborne-FltTraining-04.25.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.26.24

Sat, Oct 06, 2007

Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Blood-Clot Claims Against Airlines

Question Of Possible Causes Still Undetermined

A federal appeals court has handed American Airlines, Continental Airlines and other carriers a courtroom victory. A federal appeals panel in San Francisco, CA, upheld a lower court's dismissal of passenger claims that airlines failed to adequately warn them about the risk of blood clots.

Bloomberg reports the appeals court also agreed any airline's duty under state law to warn passengers about the risk of developing blood clots is preempted by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. But, the issue of whether lack of legroom is the cause -- and if airlines and seatmakers should be held accountable -- is still up in the air.

The three-judge appeals panel also ordered a lower-court judge to reconsider related claims that the airlines' planes provide inadequate legroom, causing the clots. In addition, it sent back to the lower court for further "factual development" the question of whether seating configurations are unsafe.

Clem Trischler, of Pietragallo Bosick & Gordon in Pittsburgh, a lawyer for the airlines, says the panel wants the lower court to examine the issue of whether having to remove seats would have a negative economic impact on the airlines.

"Once we make a factual record, I'm certain we'll be able to make that showing," he told

The airlines contend that reconfiguring seating would require a decrease in the number of passengers an airplane could carry, which would mean higher fares and an indirect regulation of ticket prices not allowed under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Airline passengers filed separate suits against airlines including Continental, American and El Al Israel Airlines. In addition, the passengers file suits against Boeing, the world's second-largest maker of commercial planes, and seatmaker Weber Aircraft.

Those defendants previously won their cases, based on arguments in court papers.

FMI: www.pbandg.com

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.26.24): DETRESFA (Distress Phrase)

DETRESFA (Distress Phrase) The code word used to designate an emergency phase wherein there is reasonable certainty that an aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and i>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.26.24)

Aero Linx: The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) is comprised of Mission organizations, flight sch>[...]

Airborne 04.22.24: Rotor X Worsens, Airport Fees 4 FNB?, USMC Drone Pilot

Also: EP Systems' Battery, Boeing SAF, Repeat TBM 960 Order, Japan Coast Guard H225 Buy Despite nearly 100 complaints totaling millions of dollars of potential fraud, combined with>[...]

Airborne 04.24.24: INTEGRAL E, Elixir USA, M700 RVSM

Also: Viasat-uAvionix, UL94 Fuel Investigation, AF Materiel Command, NTSB Safety Alert Norges Luftsportforbund chose Aura Aero's little 2-seater in electric trim for their next gli>[...]

Airborne-NextGen 04.23.24: UAVOS UVH 170, magni650 Engine, World eVTOL Directory

Also: Moya Delivery Drone, USMC Drone Pilot, Inversion RAY Reentry Vehicle, RapidFlight UAVOS has recently achieved a significant milestone in public safety and emergency services >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC